To What Extent was the USA's 2003 Invasion of Iraq Justified?

brexit

This was not justified to any level. Obama was not yet in charge at this points and due to that can't be blamed for creating a major problem in the middle east or for creating ISIS and other terrorist groups. THe US needed to get involved simply for money and oil. There wasn't much of a choice due to the attacks on 9/11 and the want for oil. There was some leverale possibly involved as well.

brandzlee

brexit said:

This was not justified to any level. Obama was not yet in charge at this points and due to that can't be blamed for creating a major problem in the middle east or for creating ISIS and other terrorist groups. THe US needed to get involved simply for money and oil. There wasn't much of a choice due to the attacks on 9/11 and the want for oil. There was some leverale possibly involved as well.

While 9/11 was indeed a terrible event, I would like to point out that:
a) At the time, Al'Qaeda was based almost entirely in Afghanistan, not Iraq, and as such, 9/11-although a distant factor- is not directly relevant to this debate
b) The US did not, at any point "need" to invade Iraq. Especially not for money or oil.

And, while Obama was certainly not in power at this point:
a) This debate focuses on the actual invasion on Iraq, and its consequences. As such, Obama is not a relevant part of this debate
b) Nowhere in my argument did I blame - or even mention - Obama.

Logic

No, It is not justified. But hey! Good ol'Merica doesn't do anything wrong!

...... In the eyes of a brainwashed american.  

islander507

I don't mind to blame Obama, but in this case it wasn't necessarily his fault.
invading Iraq was a poor decision. We essentially ended up screwing up that country even more. It's like surgeon cutting out all the bad stuff and letting patient rot without recovery.

MayCaesar

brandzlee said:

In summation, we can see that:

1. The 'Threat' of WMD's in Iraq was nonexistent, according to qualified UN inspectors both before, and after, the invasion.
2. The United States' being alarmed at the possibility of such weapons is completely hypocritical considering its status as the world's foremost nuclear superpower.
3. Despite constant attempts to convince the world of such a thing, Democracy was NOT the reason Iraq was invaded, and the act of invading Iraq was also an act of blatant disregard for the Democracy which the USA claims to enshrine and uphold.

Thus, in conclusion, the United States was NOT AT ALL justified in their 2003 invasion of Iraq.

1. UN inspectors have a very limited access to the confidential information totalitarian regimes possess, hence their conclusions should not be taken for granted. Besides, as we learned later, Iraq indeed had facilities working on the WMD technology, they just were not quite at the stage where those weapons could be used - and, according to the information of the US intelligence agencies, were transported to certain Iraq-friendly regimes.
2. It is not hypocritical, when the US is a democratic state with a very restrictive chain of command and with no expansionist ambitions, while Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship officially aimed to conquer the Middle East and recreate the Caliphate.
3. It was one of the reasons, albeit probably not the most important one. The most important reason was that Iraqi regime was performing extreme human right violations, took draconian steps to limit the regional trade and gave refuge to multiple terrorist groups friendly to the regime.
It is also worth noting that a possible dissonance between the stated goals and the actual goals does not affect whether a certain action is justified; from the point of view of pragmatism, it is the outcome and its comparison to the outcome in the absence of the action that should justify the action or not.

I do not necessarily disagree with your general conclusion: I think the war in Iraq was executed in a very poor way, and the aftermath was not handled properly - however, I find the logic you employed to come to this conclusion as somewhat biased and inconsistent.